Home

Do Good and Don’t Be Suckered

10 Comments

new-logo25 James Hufferd, Ph.D. Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Organization

_____________________________________________________

“There is something in us that refuses to be treated as less than human. We are created for freedom.” – Archbishop Desmond Tutu

___________________________________________________

There is so much hate in this current world and so much deception. Yesterday, I responded to an over-sized card I got in the mail from the phone giant Cyberlink inviting me, in effect, to change my satellite TV provider from DISH, which I presently have bundled with them, back to DIRECT, which I had bundled with back before their own dramatic price rise. I was invited to lock in the lowest price for three years. So, I called and got this people-friendly guy who told me right off that if I really wanted the lowest price, then the three-year stable-price deal was out the window. But he could save me $35 a month (big money for me, by the way) for the first year, and then I’d be free to scrum month-by-month for continued lower rates via whatever promotion they had on offer at the time.

He also explained he could throw in a $150 Visa card (bearing what interest he neglected to say), and could waive the supposedly usual deposit and give me $50 off the first payment, with no connection fee. I took his word on it, because no choice and it sounded substantially better than what I had, so I gave him my “physical address”, SS #, blood type, etc., and he locked me in and assigned me a new registration number, and then he told me I had to give him two months payment in advance immediately plus rent on the box. Stipulations, reservations, and numbers flying in every direction! And then, when I told him – well, I won’t tell you what I told him – and that the deal was off, he informed me I was already on the hook for it and cast me into what turned out to be permanent purgatory hold to try and explain the whole sequence to a different operative and cancel if I could remember enough or any of it – doubtful. Lucy and the football again!

I know that their agents, or (excuse me!) “independent contractors” are rewarded with so close to zilch by these humongous interlocking conglomerates of interlocking conglomerates, most or all owned by or through Vanguard as most likely a mere sideline to central banking and issuing earth-shaking directives and playing paymaster to countless millions, if not billions, of working stiffs globally, while posing as the American and beyond economy, that the minions all feel that they have to pass along as much of the misery, scripted chicanery, and petty disinformation as they can just to survive it themselves. And they are probably correct in that bitterly-inculcated assumption. (It’s a lot like, “if the WTC asbestos is going to cost us billions to extricate, sure, we’ll conspire.”) All of a seamless piece – this niggling deceit, state violence and boundless intrigue, shaped fiction as news, financial manipulation, theft of popular and national control.

So, with this, one wonders, just mightn’t it be better to go back to locally-based phone companies with equipment and connections that actually work and TV programming that’s all paid for by advertising – which we have to endure being thoroughly brainwashed by anyway? And, what’s it to us if the interlocking directorates don’t get their tidy per diems? Let them live on crackers and cheese off their piddling mercenaries, bombs, and our beggaring interest and debt! I’m beginning to think that “free enterprise” ain’t really all that free!

A recent theme is that the Internet can rescue humankind from government and establishment lies and deceptions. Wish that it were true! First, the percentage of people who search for the truth of things online must be in the low single digits at best. And even these oddest of folks (i.e., we) are quite effectively neutralized up to now by demonization, humiliation, threats, dire threats, and more effective and more rapid-fire lies, try as we might.

Also, nothing, and I mean nothing! on the Internet is authoritative at all in the sense that Cronkite and Huntley/Brinkley once were. Even today, all of the authority that there is is on the other side. What do we have that anyone should believe us? Grit and truth alone. Probably, not even time.

But no standard for believability exists, so we in the Truth Community all end up suspecting each other of shill-dom, troll-dom, or possibly something worse if we don’t agree on absolutely everything. Hardly inspiring credence!

So, let’s instead all try living by the tried, true and for the most part abandoned standard of absolute ethical/moral purity, so that people will have no cause to want to disbelieve us. We must literally be the society we seek to birth. Or else, we can cast no aspersions. No more ad hominems or unsubstantiated charges based on little more than 360-degree suspicion (a character flaw usually stuck with a less-flattering name). Stick to the verified and verifiable facts and extend courtesy and withhold final judgment even where doing so may not be deserved. Going forward, we must stand out for forbearance, not quick-triggered-ness, because there’s more than we can handle that we can prove.

In discourse, never lose sight of justice; but we must strive our utmost to resemble the extraordinary forgivers of the church in Charleston. And we will probably lose some points in so doing, but gradually gain a whole lot more, I believe, than we ever dreamed.

One more motto we can proudly place on our banners for all to see and repeat – “DO GOOD AND DON’T BE SUCKERED!”

JH: 6/28/15

The Emergence of Orwellian Newspeak and the Death of Free Speech

3 Comments

RutherfordHeader_2
By John W. Whitehead
June 29, 2015

This commentary is also available at www.rutherford.org.

“If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the government is inefficient, top-heavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it…. Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of noncombustible data, chock them so damned full of ‘facts’ they feel stuffed, but absolutely ‘brilliant’ with information. Then they’ll feel they’re thinking, they’ll get a sense of motion without moving. And they’ll be happy, because facts of that sort don’t change.” ― Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451

How do you change the way people think? You start by changing the words they use.

In totalitarian regimes—a.k.a. police states—where conformity and whitehad bokcompliance are enforced at the end of a loaded gun, the government dictates what words can and cannot be used. In countries where the police state hides behind a benevolent mask and disguises itself as tolerance, the citizens censor themselves, policing their words and thoughts to conform to the dictates of the mass mind.

Even when the motives behind this rigidly calibrated reorientation of societal language appear well-intentioned—discouraging racism, condemning violence, denouncing discrimination and hatred—inevitably, the end result is the same: intolerance, indoctrination and infantilism.

It’s political correctness disguised as tolerance, civility and love, but what it really amounts to is the chilling of free speech and the demonizing of viewpoints that run counter to the cultural elite.

As a society, we’ve become fearfully polite, careful to avoid offense, and largely unwilling to be labeled intolerant, hateful, closed-minded or any of the other toxic labels that carry a badge of shame today. The result is a nation where no one says what they really think anymore, at least if it runs counter to the prevailing views. Intolerance is the new scarlet letter of our day, a badge to be worn in shame and humiliation, deserving of society’s fear, loathing and utter banishment from society.

For those “haters” who dare to voice a different opinion, retribution is swift: they will be shamed, shouted down, silenced, censored, fired, cast out and generally relegated to the dust heap of ignorant, mean-spirited bullies who are guilty of various “word crimes.”

We have entered a new age where, as commentator Mark Steyn notes, “we have to tiptoe around on ever thinner eggshells” and “the forces of ‘tolerance’ are intolerant of anything less than full-blown celebratory approval.”

In such a climate of intolerance, there can be no freedom speech, expression or thought.

Yet what the forces of political correctness fail to realize is that they owe a debt to the so-called “haters” who have kept the First Amendment robust. From swastika-wearing Neo-Nazis marching through Skokie, Illinois, and underaged cross burners to “God hates fags” protesters assembled near military funerals, those who have inadvertently done the most to preserve the right to freedom of speech for all have espoused views that were downright unpopular, if not hateful.

Until recently, the U.S. Supreme Court has reiterated that the First Amendment prevents the government from proscribing speech, or even expressive conduct, because it disapproves of the ideas expressed. However, that long-vaunted, Court-enforced tolerance for “intolerant” speech has now given way to a paradigm in which the government can discriminate freely against First Amendment activity that takes place within a government forum. Justifying such discrimination as “government speech,” the Court ruled that the Texas Dept. of Motor Vehicles could refuse to issue specialty license plate designs featuring a Confederate battle flag. Why? Because it was deemed offensive.

The Court’s ruling came on the heels of a shooting in which a 21-year-old white gunman killed nine African-Americans during a Wednesday night Bible study at a church in Charleston, N.C. The two events, coupled with the fact that gunman Dylann Roof was reportedly pictured on several social media sites with a Confederate flag, have resulted in an emotionally charged stampede to sanitize the nation’s public places of anything that smacks of racism, starting with the Confederate flag and ballooning into a list that includes the removal of various Civil War monuments.

These tactics are nothing new. This nation, birthed from puritanical roots, has always struggled to balance its love of liberty with its moralistic need to censor books, music, art, language, symbols etc. As author Ray Bradbury notes, “There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.”

Indeed, thanks to the rise of political correctness, the population of book burners, censors, and judges has greatly expanded over the years so that they run the gamut from left-leaning to right-leaning and everything in between. By eliminating words, phrases and symbols from public discourse, the powers-that-be are sowing hate, distrust and paranoia. In this way, by bottling up dissent, they are creating a pressure cooker of stifled misery that will eventually blow.

For instance, the word “Christmas” is now taboo in the public schools, as is the word “gun.” Even childish drawings of soldiers result in detention or suspension under rigid zero tolerance policies. On college campuses, trigger warnings are being used to alert students to any material they might read, see or hear that might upset them, while free speech zones restrict anyone wishing to communicate a particular viewpoint to a specially designated area on campus. Things have gotten so bad that comedians such as Chris Rock and Jerry Seinfeld refuse to perform stand-up routines to college crowds anymore.

Clearly, the country is undergoing a nervous breakdown, and the news media is helping to push us to the brink of insanity by bombarding us with wall-to-wall news coverage and news cycles that change every few days.

In this way, it’s difficult to think or debate, let alone stay focused on one thing—namely, holding the government accountable to abiding by the rule of law—and the powers-that-be understand this.

As I document in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, regularly scheduled trivia and/or distractions keep the citizenry tuned into the various breaking news headlines and entertainment spectacles and tuned out to the government’s steady encroachments on our freedoms. These sleight-of-hand distractions and diversions are how you control a population, either inadvertently or intentionally, advancing a political agenda agenda without much opposition from the citizenry.

Professor Jacques Ellul studied this phenomenon of overwhelming news, short memories and the use of propaganda to advance hidden agendas. “One thought drives away another; old facts are chased by new ones,” wrote Ellul.

Under these conditions there can be no thought. And, in fact, modern man does not think about current problems; he feels them. He reacts, but he does not understand them any more than he takes responsibility for them. He is even less capable of spotting any inconsistency between successive facts; man’s capacity to forget is unlimited. This is one of the most important and useful points for the propagandists, who can always be sure that a particular propaganda theme, statement, or event will be forgotten within a few weeks.

Already, the outrage over the Charleston shooting and racism are fading from the news headlines, yet the determination to censor the Confederate symbol remains. Before long, we will censor it from our thoughts, sanitize it from our history books, and eradicate it from our monuments without even recalling why. The question, of course, is what’s next on the list to be banned?

It was for the sake of preserving individuality and independence that James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, fought for a First Amendment that protected the “minority” against the majority, ensuring that even in the face of overwhelming pressure, a minority of one—even one who espouses distasteful viewpoints—would still have the right to speak freely, pray freely, assemble freely, challenge the government freely, and broadcast his views in the press freely.

This freedom for those in the unpopular minority constitutes the ultimate tolerance in a free society. Conversely, when we fail to abide by Madison’s dictates about greater tolerance for all viewpoints, no matter how distasteful, the end result is always the same: an indoctrinated, infantilized citizenry that marches in lockstep with the governmental regime.

Some of this past century’s greatest dystopian literature shows what happens when the populace is transformed into mindless automatons. In Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, reading is banned and books are burned in order to suppress dissenting ideas, while televised entertainment is used to anesthetize the populace and render them easily pacified, distracted and controlled.

In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, serious literature, scientific thinking and experimentation are banned as subversive, while critical thinking is discouraged through the use of conditioning, social taboos and inferior education. Likewise, expressions of individuality, independence and morality are viewed as vulgar and abnormal.

And in George Orwell’s 1984, Big Brother does away with all undesirable and unnecessary words and meanings, even going so far as to routinely rewrite history and punish “thoughtcrimes.” In this dystopian vision of the future, the Thought Police serve as the eyes and ears of Big Brother, while the Ministry of Peace deals with war and defense, the Ministry of Plenty deals with economic affairs (rationing and starvation), the Ministry of Love deals with law and order (torture and brainwashing), and the Ministry of Truth deals with news, entertainment, education and art (propaganda). The mottos of Oceania: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

All three—Bradbury, Huxley and Orwell—had an uncanny knack for realizing the future, yet it is Orwell who best understood the power of language to manipulate the masses. Orwell’s Big Brother relied on Newspeak to eliminate undesirable words, strip such words as remained of unorthodox meanings and make independent, non-government-approved thought altogether unnecessary. To give a single example, as psychologist Erich Fromm illustrates in his afterword to 1984:

The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as “This dog is free from lice” or “This field is free from weeds.” It could not be used in its old sense of “politically free” or “intellectually free,” since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed as concepts….

Where we stand now is at the juncture of OldSpeak (where words have meanings, and ideas can be dangerous) and Newspeak (where only that which is “safe” and “accepted” by the majority is permitted). The power elite has made their intentions clear: they will pursue and prosecute any and all words, thoughts and expressions that challenge their authority.

This is the final link in the police state chain.

Having been reduced to a cowering citizenry—mute in the face of elected officials who refuse to represent us, helpless in the face of police brutality, powerless in the face of militarized tactics and technology that treat us like enemy combatants on a battlefield, and naked in the face of government surveillance that sees and hears all—we have nowhere left to go. Our backs are to the walls. From this point on, we have only two options: go down fighting, or capitulate and betray our loved ones, our friends and our selves by insisting that, as a brainwashed Winston Smith does at the end of Orwell’s 1984, yes, 2+2 does equal 5.

WC: 1909